JOHN BOLTON: HOW TO FOIL THE PALI STATE PLOY……..

How to Block the Palestine Statehood Ploy

Congress can take a cue from Jim Baker in 1989 and threaten to cut U.S. money for the U.N.

Now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his recent sparring partner Barack Obama are back in their corners, the next Arab-Israeli political flash point could be this fall at the U.N. General Assembly. The Palestinian Authority is lobbying Assembly members to legitimize its claim to international status as a “state.”

Recognizing “statehood” does not mean U.N. membership, but it would nonetheless be a major Palestinian success. A resolution recognizing a Palestinian “state” could also declare its boundary to be the 1967 borders (in actuality, merely the 1949 armistice lines), with or without President Obama’s caveat about “agreed upon swaps” of land.

The obvious Palestinian objective is to remove the issues of statehood and boundaries from the realm of bilateral negotiations with Israel, making them fait accompli. Last fall, the Palestinians focused on obtaining a Security Council resolution for this purpose. They believed, for whatever reason, that Mr. Obama would not order an American veto, as his predecessors would have done without hesitation. Many thought the administration might even vote “yes” rather than abstain.

When it became clear that U.S. opposition in the Security Council was likely, on statehood or on U.N. membership, Palestinian attention shifted to the General Assembly, where there is no veto. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, and that body has no authority to recognize states, although its actions can be politically powerful, as the 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution demonstrated.

This is déjà vu all over again. In late 1988, Palestinians issued a “declaration of statehood,” changing their U.N. observer delegation’s name from “Palestine Liberation Organization” to “Palestine” to sound more like a state, which scores of countries recognized. The Palestinians then campaigned to join U.N. bodies like the World Health Organization, reasoning that since U.N. agency charters allow only states as members, the admission of “Palestine” would prove that it, too, was a state.

Ridiculous in the real world but not in the U.N., the PLO effort gained overwhelming support there. George H.W. Bush’s new administration and Israel protested that “Palestine” manifestly did not meet customary international law definitions of statehood, such as having a clearly defined territory and exercising a government’s legitimate domestic and international responsibilities. Third World countries rallied almost unanimously to the PLO, and Europe’s response was weak. European diplomats believed Washington’s opposition was merely pro forma due to the “Jewish lobby.”

Faced with the near certainty of defeat, Secretary of State James Baker warned publicly: “I will recommend to the President that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any changes in the PLO’s status as an observer organization.”

No politician of Mr. Baker’s skill would publicize his proposals unless he knew that the president would accept them, and this reality was rapidly understood internationally. Although defeating the PLO campaign required further maneuvering, Mr. Baker’s statement was the death knell of the “statehood” push.

The lesson for today is plain. If President Obama wants to block a General Assembly Palestinian statehood resolution, he should act essentially as Messrs. Bush and Baker did. Yet Mr. Obama is highly unlikely to do anything so decisive, which is why many in America and Israel remain gravely concerned about this latest Palestinian diplomatic ploy.

Accordingly, we should turn to Congress, which has a rich history of dealing with U.N. actions it doesn’t appreciate. Rather than wait for a Baker-like threat, Congress should legislate broadly that any U.N. action that purports to acknowledge or authorize Palestinian statehood will result in a cutoff of all U.S. contributions to the offending agency. If the General Assembly ignored this warning, all funds would be cut off to the bloated Secretariat in New York, but not to separate agencies like the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and others with their own governing bodies and funding mechanisms.

The logic is the same today as it was in 1989. Moreover, our current federal budget deficits provide another attractive reason to reduce U.N. contributions. If political realities make it impossible to cut off funding completely, perhaps a partial reduction, say 50%, might be a suitable compromise.

Although the General Assembly will not convene again until September, there is no time to waste. Fatah’s coalition with Hamas already provides statutory grounds (since the U.S. lists Hamas as a terrorist organization) to eliminate funding for the Palestinian Authority. Reducing U.S. funding to the U.N. is the next available, highly visible, target of opportunity. It presents the U.N. membership with a fascinating question: Would they rather recognize Palestinian statehood, or keep America’s money?

3 Responses

There is absolutely no argument in this article to justify Israel’s illegal occupation and brutality. Nor is there any credible argument about why the Palestinians should not be free in their own lands. Bolton sounds like a shill for the Jewish lobby.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Melting pot societies are the only way to secure the individual…

Multiculturalism is a gross failure. Assimilation, where celebrating one’s own heritage but as a full member of the dominant culture, wins.

There Is No Such Thing As White Cultural Heritage. The West’s Legacy Is Open To All…

There’s No Common Cultural Legacy For The Alt-Right

Still, is there something to it? Is there a common heritage that will cover El Greco and Hume and Dostoyevsky? Is there one that can include the Jacobites and the Jacobins? There is, but it is not racial, and white supremacists reject it because it rejects them. The unifying heritage of Europe is religious and philosophical. It is Jerusalem and Athens, in one famous formulation. Christian religion and Greek philosophy, filtered through Roman law and culture, are the foundation of European culture. The tensions, agreements, developments and settlements between these have shaped the Western world, and these roots of Western civilization are not congenial to white supremacy.

Christianity is universal in its message and Jewish in its origins. For centuries after its founding, Christianity’s center was the Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor and North Africa. Christianity has never been defined by race, and locally-grown racist heresies are only sustainable among those ignorant of Christianity’s teachings, origins and history.

Greek philosophy is likewise ill-suited to serve as a basis for white identity. It is either too universal (addressing the human condition in general) or too local—none of us live as citizens of an ancient Greek polis. Later philosophical developments in Europe, such as the philosophies of the Enlightenment, likewise tend to be too universal for white supremacists seeking a tribal identity. As for the scientific revolution that developed within Western culture (albeit with much borrowed from outside Europe), math doesn’t care what color someone is.

Trending Israeli News…

IDF prepares to demolish Jerusalem terrorist's house
Army units make initial preparations for demolition of terrorist's house, following murder of Adiel Coleman in the Old City of Jerusalem.Man murdered in Jerusalem attack: Adiel Kolman
Jewish man who was murdered in attack in the Old City of Jerusalem identified as Adiel Kolman, a resident of Kochav Hashahar.Murderer of Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal caught
Israeli forces arrest Israeli Arab responsible for the murder of Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal near Ariel last month.ISRAELI AIR FORCE STRIKES HAMAS TERROR TARGET IN GAZA STRIP
"The attack was carried out in response to the placement of explosive devices on the border fence."

SECULARISM AND RELIGION: THE ONSLAUGHT AGAINST THE WEST’S MORAL CODES

War is being waged against Western culture from within which is in essence a war against Christianity and its moral origins in the Hebrew Bible. By attacking these Biblical foundations in the name of reason and human rights, the culture warriors of secularism are sawing off the branch on which they sit. The only way to defend Western civilisation is to reaffirm and restore its Biblical foundations. My argument is a development of ideas I first explored in my 2012 book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

We are living in an era which extols reason, science and human rights. These are said to be essential for progress, a civilised society and the betterment of humanity. Religion is said to be their antithesis, the source instead of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, oppression and backward-thinking.

Some of this hostility is being driven by the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism and the Islamisation of Western culture. However, this animus against religion has far deeper roots and can be traced back to what is considered the birthplace of Western reason, the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Actually, it goes back specifically to the French Enlightenment. In England and Scotland, the Enlightenment developed reason and political liberty within the framework of Biblical belief. In France, by contrast, anti-clericalism morphed into fundamental hostility to Christianity and to religion itself.

“Ecrasez l’infame,” said Voltaire (crush infamy) — the infamy to which he referred being not just the Church but Christianity, which he wanted to replace with the religion of reason, virtue and liberty, “drawn from the bosom of nature”.

Perfecting society

But this Enlightenment did not remove religion so much as pervert it. It took millenarian fantasies, the idea that the perfection of the world was at hand, and it secularised them. Instead of God producing heaven on earth, it would be mankind which would bring that about. Reason would create the perfect society and “progress” was the process by which utopia would be attained.

Middle East expert Mordechai Kedar: To talk of peace in the Middle East is akin to begging to keep your head connected to your shoulders…

What mainstream Islam really teaches, what they believe…

Trending European News..

SAS sniper kills senior ISIS fighter with 'one in a million' night-time headshot from a mile away close to the Syrian border
SAS sniper kills senior ISIS fighter with 'one in a million' shot
The marksman is said to have killed the terrorist with a 'head shot' close to the Syrian border having been given a window of just 15 seconds. He is understood to be a sergeant with the SAS G-Sqaudron and a veteran of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he is understood to have recorded as many as 100 kills.Rees-Mogg’s Ultimatum to May: If Britain Bends to EU on Trade Policy It Will Become ‘Joke Nation’Report: Czechs Mulling Moving Embassy to Jerusalem
TEL AVIV – The Czech Republic has begun investigating the possibility of following the U.S.’s lead and moving its embassy to Jerusalem as a result of a diplomatic campaign waged by Israel, Channel 10 reported on Saturday.Danish Social Democrat leader faces criticism after 'using ethnicity' in Facebook debate
Mette Frederiksen has been criticised after she appeared to suggest a commenter was less entitled to take part in debate because of her immigrant background.

Daniel Greenfield explains Islam 101:

"Every devout Muslim is an "Islamist". Islam is not a personal religion. It is a religion of the public space. A "moderate" Muslim would have to reject Islam as a religion of the public space, as theocracy, and that secularism would be a rejection of Islam.

Nothing in Islam exists apart from anything else. While liberals view culture and religion as a buffet that they can pick and choose from, it is a single integrated system. If you accept one part, you must accept the whole. Once you accept any aspect of Islam, you must accept its legal system and once you accept that, you must accept its governance and once you accept that, you lose your rights.''

Trending Middle East News…

Republican Senator expects Trump to pull out of Iran deal
Senator Bob Corker says he expects Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement in May.Greenblatt: Hamas is burying Gaza's future
Trump’s envoy condemns Samaria terrorist attack, blasts Hamas for welcoming it.Analysis: Here's how to deal with the barbaric Syrian regime
Electrocuting children, turning hospitals into slaughterhouses, using chemical weaponry - how long can this be allowed to continue?(Thanks to Obama for giving a time date for US departure)
Analysts: Iraq War Legacy Marked by Failure, Some Success

Jenin: Massacring Truth (This documentary was made long before the term #FakeNews got started…